I agree with you Geoff - as you rightly assumed, I don't think Agility is overpowered.

But you know what? I don't think adding this change would diminish it significantly. I think we can both agree that setting up that sort of situation where you can actually Charge a NON-SHUTDOWN 'Mech's rear arc is rather difficult given the large number of ways in which the player can counter the setup. You DO have to start your turn there, after all.

And I agree again - an unbased 'Mech standing in the middle of the battlefield getting charged from behind (with the opposing 'Mech again starting in the rear arc) should be able to apply his Agility to it. But when does this situation come up? NEVER.

I mean, this would be giving Agility 'Mechs an Achilles' Heel (a second one, granted, since ranged is currently it) even more insignificant and hard to reach than Achilles' heel actually was. :)

Plus, come ON, how happy would YOU feel if you managed to make Arnis take one in the rear? ;)

I think of Agility as being a lot like the MW2 Jumpjets myself and have no problem with Agility as it is. I don't see the rear arc argument as valid... I've had no problem keeping my eye on my main target while checking the radar too.

Maybe its just that I'm a pilot. For me cross-checking instruments while keeping on top of what's going on outside the plane (including visually scanning behind me) is standard procedure. Mechwarriors are also pilots... most have trained for years to be able to pilot the metal behemoths so similar multi-tasking just doesn't strike me as hard.

Further, since not all light Mechs have agility, clearly its something above and beyond just mobility that agility is defining. While Mech-Fu is not as common as authors like Delrio made it seem, there are some examples of it even in the Stackpole novels with pilots who were the best of the best.

As long as there are guns in Mechwarrior there are ways of dealing with agility Mechs easily. For that matter unless you're dealing with the SW Crimsonhawk its possible to knock them out of Agility one click at a time. With rare exceptions most units with Agility lose it after taking four clicks of damage and often less.

Also, no Agility mech I'm aware of has a base defense higher than 21 so its not like they're going to have unbelievable defenses against ranged attacks on their own. It is only when Agility is combined with other SE's like Evade or camouflage that increase their ranged defense that Agility seems broken.

I just have to say that I disagree with anyone who says Agility is overpowered and/or broken. :devious:

It works fine the way it is. There is no need to change it. It doesn't stop the damage when the 'Mech it is on, charges. :p

No offense, hakkenshi, but your ideas for rules fixing makes it more complicated than it needs to be. The idea of MWDA was to be a simple, easy, and fun game. CBT took an hour to setup and 2 to 3 hours to play one game. Complicated, yes; easy, no. CBT use of an algebra equation to just figure out what I have to roll on 3d6 to hit you was a little nuts. MWDA, was suppose to draw in the younger crowd that didn't want to speed time on trying to figure out what you had to role; Defense minus Attack, roll, hit or miss. Done. That fast and simple.
If any of you are taking more time than that, you have issues. Evade, camo, VTOL cruising, all very simple. Add the +1, 2, or 3. This is second grade math here folks. Not that hard. :p

first: somebody mentioned early in the thread that DFA in backarc is relatively easy - it isnt, back arc bonus doesnt work for DFA, read the rules.

second: agility is fine like it is right now. most of the agility mechs would be unplayable sh** if agility was nerfed. this SE forces the opponent to play a certain non-closecombat style, and i dont see any problem at that.

third: whoever was argumenting that mechs arent all that agile (no sidesteps etc.). mechs actually are able to do sidesteps, because they have done so in some of the books. this is a SF-game where giant walking tanks are bashing each other close (and sometimes at range :p ). you shouldnt really try to come up with reasonable explanations too much. most important: mechs woud look silly and uncool while moving if they couldnt sidestep.

oh, and another important reason (logic reason that is) why mechs must be able to sidesteps: otherwise they could stand without falling on the side of a hill :noid:
means: the hip must be able to move --> sidestep possible

You're right -- it probably would not diminish agility that much. After thinking about it, I'd probably be willing to play under either rule except that the rules as they currently work is the way everyone is used to doing it. If agility is not really broken, and the change isn't going to make the much difference in game play, then it's probably not worth confusing people by changing the rules around. Just for analogy sake, I was playing a game earlier today and the guys at the next table kept saying things like "oh, that infantry should have taken damage two turns ago when you broke away". Why do that to people if you're not fixing something thats really wrong with the game?

Geoff

why is agility overpowered??? all u have to do is shoot them in base to base and u do normal damage...

:devious: I have an idea,
how bout you leave agility alone, and I give you the finger!

I have ANOTHER idea: how about everyone read the part in all my D A M N posts where I say I think Agility is fine as is?

Jeez, folks, I can deal with flames when we're disagreeing on something, but if you would take care to actually READ instead of acting like a bunch of dyslexic monkeys, these things would go a lot smoother.

@ Geoff, you're probably right - I was discussing this for the sake of argument more than anything else. Given that people obviously can't tell, I'm gonna let it go. No use trying to have ONE little pointless discussion here. :rolleyes:

@ Razorfang, if 'Mechs could sidestep, they could jump. They cannot. Therefore they cannot sidestep - their knees don't bend correctly.

And please, stop the "it's SF" counter-arguments, logic has to enter somewhere even within this realm of giant robotic war machines.

@ CrakRabbit, you already have rules that state that you only get the +2 attack to Charge if you STARTED the turn in the rear arc. Adding that this also negates Agility is within the grasp of the slowest child. Don't underestimate kids, they're smarter than we give them credit for.

@ Chris, you're piloting a PLANE, surely you can see the difference. I strongly doubt your craft is often locked in close-combat with anything. My entire point was that since you will NEVER expose your rear arc for an entire turn to a possible charger unless you are based, and since base-to-base is considered intense enough to require breaking away, the pilot who is exposing a weak spot while preoccupied with other enemies would not necessarily be able to react in time to "roll with impact". Sensors do not even enter into it.

But clearly my stating over and over that I don't believe Agility needs fixing was not clear enough for anyone.

However, I ALSO think this one little change would do nothing to really lessen Agility, since no competent player would allow a 'Mech to set up a Charge on an important piece over a turn.

I can't believe I'm reading a thread about agility being bad.
AGILITY is Fine Wizkids. Do not pay any attention to this thread.
I can't believe I found this thread. Why would agility be too powerful?? Arnis is a bit much, but agility is fine.

Do you have a problem with Agility? There's a real simple way around it. SHOOT THE BUGGER OR SHUT HIM DOWN!

It's the funniest thing, really... I've gone back over the entire thread, and I couldn't find ONE comment that actually said Agility needed to be fixed.

Are you people all on auto-flame or something, or is it a reading disability? What happened to people just wanting to kick around an idea? What is it you find so friggin' offensive about discussion?

If you don't feel like participating in a constructive way, no one forces you to post. So don't.

Hakkensi, there are alot of comments earlier in the thread that are proposing changes for Agility and believe that it should be so, yourself included, when the fact of the matter is that there is no problem with Agility. There are a number of ways to counter it and from the beginning, it has been intended as protection against close combat mechs, such as Tonkas. Alot of people may be thrown into flame so easily because some people are still a little gunshy after what happened with Charge.

Ed, do me a favour and re-read how many times I and Crimson Hawk (among others) stated that we find Agility fine as is and do NOT think it needs changing, but think that a little tweaking can't hurt it either.

Since there is only ONE situation in which the proposed tweak would remotely be a threat to an Agility 'Mech (i.e. when you spend a turn IGNORING your opponent), it really doesn't make a difference, does it? In any case, we were just proposing POSSIBLE tweaks. No one was submitting any demands to WK to change Agility which (I repeat again) we do NOT believe to be broken or in real need of changing.

Idle discussion is possible, you know. And I don't appreciate being flamed for trying to indulge in it. Believing the logic of using Agility against a rear-arc Charge while in base contact is flawed and clamouring for a nerf to Agility are two VERY different things.

As the thread starter, i think its time for me to come out to clarify. This thread is started NOT bcos there is anything wrong with Agility gameplay wise. HOWEVER, i still insist that LOGIC-wise, agility is a bit too powerful. It seems stupid to me that a Mech can doge a attack from his rear with agility.

Hey...the rear arc of a Mech does have a significance. If not....why does Wizkids even bother to make it part of the gameplay. If a mech with agility can dodge a incoming DFA, i really do not see why it cant dodge incoming missle attack. Hence, it would seem better to me if it cant dodge attacks started from its rear.

Frankly speaking, I do not thik that Wizkids has planned MW to be a simple game. In fact, from the interview with Kelly, she revealed 'possibilities' of designing terrain cards and etc like that of MK.

Oh Btw, the only serious disagreement i have with some posts is when they mentioned that charge is 'lousy' and we can jus outshoot chargers. Pleaseeeee......the most powerful thing about a charge is that it uses ONE order to accomplish 2 things and does it with a LARGE range. I can assure u that if the new charge rules werent implemented, Bounty Hunter would be almost unstoppable with his evade and heavenly attacks,....not to forget the TSM.

But neverhteless, as this game already possesses many other illogical gameplay mechanisms such as AP hurting Decoy, I do not really blame others for not seeing it my way. :)

Cheers and Happy 'coming' Chinese New Year...the Liaos would be celebrating this season. :D

On the rear arc, my view has always been that it doesn't mean as much a likely-ness to hit, but to do damage. In Classic Battletech, hitting the back was always great, because it let you get at things like gyros and engines without going through all that heavy front torso armor. Going from charts to clicks though, it does make the game simpler, but loses some of those details in the transition. However, back in the same rules, charging wasn't as good an idea. How much damage you took depended on how big the target was. Charging an Atlas with a Dasher? Prepare to wreck yourself as well.